The Christian idea about Two natures?

[Sleeppy]

Sleeppy, I'd appreciate a google search attempt at least before asking.

I would've, if I hadn't been using my phone.. And probably still would've asked so that you would do the search and provide your own evidence. But, I'm familiar with this and had no need to search anything except the Quran. The Bible, I'm sure, says 'Angel of the Lord'.

If you examine the OT (NT even), you'll notice what Shermana is referring to. Messengers from kings, and angels from God both spoke as if they were either king or God, when relaying the specific message.

 

[Kemble]

The argument still isn't convincing, so I did some digging around. Turns out there are 2 camps of writers that were behind it: the Elohists and the Jahwists.

"Textual scholars regard the account of the burning bush as being spliced together from the Jahwist and Elohist texts, with the Angel of Yahweh and the removal of sandals being part of the Elohist version, and the Yahwist's parallels to these being God and the turning away of Moses' face, respectively." -- Burning bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the differences between the Elohists and Jahwists:

"While the Yahwist presented an anthropomorphic God who could walk through the Garden of Eden looking for Adam and Eve, the Elohist frequently involves angels. For example, it is the Elohist version of the tale of Jacob's ladder in which there is a ladder of angels with God at the top, leading to Jacob later dedicating the place as Beth-El (House of God), whereas in the Jahwist tale, it is a simple dream in which God is simply above the location, without the ladder or angels. Likewise, the Elohist describes Jacob actually wrestling with God; later, it features the tale of Balaam and his divinely talking donkey, although this is often considered a tale that was accidentally added to the manuscript, as it appears quite unconnected to the rest of the work." -- Elohist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it's a contradiction, and both views are correct.

 

[Shermana]

Turns out there are 2 camps of writers that were behind it: the Elohists and the Jahwists.

That is one (old and oft-criticized) particular theory on the subject. But I don't think there was an E and P source, just a J and D. As recently confirmed by the Israeli-software project on the issue.

 

[F0uad]

I am just here to clarify the Quranic stance there are two interpretations of Surah 27:8 that go as the following:

But when he came to it, he was called: "Blessed is whosoever is in the fire, and whosoever is round about it!''
meaning, when he came to it, he saw a great and terrifying sight: the fire was burning in a green bush, and the fire was burning ever brighter while the bush was growing ever more green and beautiful. Then he raised his head, and saw that its light was connected to the clouds of the sky.

and the other interpretation says

"It was not a fire, rather it was shining light.''

Musa stood amazed by what he was seeing, and نُودِيَ أَن بُورِكَ مَن فِي النَّارِ (he was called: "Blessed is whosoever is in the fire...''),

"This means, Holy is (whosoever is in the fire).''
وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا (and whosoever is round about it)
means, of the angels.

then it says:

O Musa! Verily, it is I, Allah, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.

So this gives a indication that Allah(swt) spoke true the angel what we belief he did time to time and even true prophets(peace be upon them) on occasions.

As for 28:29-30 it doesn't help your argument.

Conclusion:

At the end the verses do not say that either a angel became the bush or that Allah(swt) became the bush but rather that a voice came out of the direction that doesn't imply that the bush was possessed or that the bush came to life.

So there is no contradiction nor a problem wherein you still belief that a circle can be a square on the same time.

 

[Muffled]

There's no contradiction, apparently whoever wrote Acts 7:30 went with the Angel account too. The word "Angel" means "Messenger", which implies the Angel is speaking a message God gave him to say.

If a messenger from the King came and said "I am the King, you have not paid your taxes, kiss my ring" and the servant extends his pinky ring for you to kiss, does that mean the Servant is the King?

You didn't answer my question, you simply repeated the assertion that it's God himself talking, rather than the Angel bearing the message.

I can just as easily say that 27:8 indirectly implies its an Angel bearing God's message, even if it says "I am God", just like how a messenger would say "I am the King".

Moses had a conversation. A messenger can't do that because all he can do is deliver a message. In this case God is a messenger because he has a message for Moses as opposed to just providing information or asking questions.

 

[Joshua Tilghman]

Before i ask my questions and enter a discussion in whoever wants to reply i want to say that i mean no disrespect towards Christianity nor am i trying to attack it.

My question is how does the Two natures of Jesuss(pbuh) actually works?

Each time i hear the argument that Jesus(pbuh) was fully God and fully Human at the same time i feel
confused and i get the assumption it is a argument based on no scriptural references and contradicts with basic logic and reasoning.

Let me give you a example: Human-beings are humans, animals are animals. If a man became a duck he wouldn't be longer a man but a duck. An another example the frog prince, the princess who kissed the frog who then becomes a prince well now he is no longer a frog but something different a prince. So basically if God becomes a man or a incarnate man then god is now a man and he isn't god anymore because they are two different distinct beings.

Now did i miss something? Or is there a explanation on how it could work..

A good question that even many Christians are confused about and can't explain. This is one of the questions that sparked a serious spiritual journey for me. I left the church because no matter how many answers I got, nothing made sense. I am still a deeply spiritual person and enjoy reading the Bible, but I do not believe it was meant to be taken literally.

The way I now understand it is that I had the wrong concept of God and reality before. Consciousness (spirit) and flesh (matter) are dependent upon one another. In other words, you don't have one without the other. Now by matter I don't mean just the physical aspects of reality that we see, touch, hear, smell, etc. Matter can also be very subtle, so much so that it goes well beyond subatomic particles. That is how consciousness resides in our physical bodies. In death of the physical body, consciousness isn't so limited anymore and retreats back to the emotional-mental body, and even to higher realms. The point is, even though these bodies are more subtle than the physical, they are still bodies.

I say all this to point that the two natures are really ONE. The story of Christ is the story of us all. Natural man (which Jesus was supposed to be) is the person who lives in a very consciousness-limited world view. A Christ is someone who has learned to bring union between the natural and divine natures. We all have the ability to do this. I believe this is what the scripture was talking about from Col. where the writer states that Jesus was the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form.

The Bible is a book for the mystic. A literal reading of the Bible is necessary first, but as Paul says, at some point we must "leave the doctrines of Christ" (literal teachings) to get to the heart of the New Testament's message.

In a sense, we are all both God and man at the same time. The veil of illusion keeps us from seeing this truth.

 

[F0uad]

A good question that even many Christians are confused about and can't explain. This is one of the questions that sparked a serious spiritual journey for me. I left the church because no matter how many answers I got, nothing made sense. I am still a deeply spiritual person and enjoy reading the Bible, but I do not believe it was meant to be taken literally.

The way I now understand it is that I had the wrong concept of God and reality before. Consciousness (spirit) and flesh (matter) are dependent upon one another. In other words, you don't have one without the other. Now by matter I don't mean just the physical aspects of reality that we see, touch, hear, smell, etc. Matter can also be very subtle, so much so that it goes well beyond subatomic particles. That is how consciousness resides in our physical bodies. In death of the physical body, consciousness isn't so limited anymore and retreats back to the emotional-mental body, and even to higher realms. The point is, even though these bodies are more subtle than the physical, they are still bodies.

I say all this to point that the two natures are really ONE. The story of Christ is the story of us all. Natural man (which Jesus was supposed to be) is the person who lives in a very consciousness-limited world view. A Christ is someone who has learned to bring union between the natural and divine natures. We all have the ability to do this. I believe this is what the scripture was talking about from Col. where the writer states that Jesus was the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form.

The Bible is a book for the mystic. A literal reading of the Bible is necessary first, but as Paul says, at some point we must "leave the doctrines of Christ" (literal teachings) to get to the heart of the New Testament's message.

In a sense, we are all both God and man at the same time. The veil of illusion keeps us from seeing this truth.

I am not god nor will i call myself god thanks for the offer though.

 

[F0uad]

Moses had a conversation. A messenger can't do that because all he can do is deliver a message. In this case God is a messenger because he has a message for Moses as opposed to just providing information or asking questions.

There is no messenger if god spoke directly.

A messenger is someone who brings a "Message" from person/point A to person/point B. If Person A went himself there is no messenger.

An angel(what are also called messengers) can speak for god or god can speak true them.

 

[SageTree]

I am not god nor will i call myself god thanks for the offer though.

I don't feel the member is insinuating that we are God.

The quote that comes to mind here is:

"The Eye with which I see God and God sees me are the same Eye"

Do you feel it's possible for a fully aware and attuned human, free of lower-Self and carrying out the will of the Creator, could or would not see the world with Divine sight?

 

[F0uad]

I don't feel the member is insinuating that we are God.

The quote that comes to mind here is:

"The Eye with which I see God and God sees me are the same Eye"

Do you feel it's possible for a fully aware and attuned human, free of lower-Self and carrying out the will of the Creator, could or would not see the world with Divine sight?

Clarify the divine sight? I do belief that a man can carry out the will of the Creator if he is instructed to do so and i think i misunderstood him if he meant it that way.

 

[SageTree]

Clarify the divine sight?

More closely actualizing one's Life with the qualities of the Creator.
(Think the 99 names)

I do belief that a man can carry out the will of the Creator if he is instructed to do so and i think i misunderstood him if he meant it that way.

I can't speak for the other member, and thank you for your thoughts.

 

[F0uad]

More closely actualizing one's Life with the qualities of the Creator.
(Think the 99 names)

The 99 Attributes *not names* are superior to that of Human attributes..
Anyway i lost you..

 

[Muffled]

There is no messenger if god spoke directly.

A messenger is someone who brings a "Message" from person/point A to person/point B. If Person A went himself there is no messenger.

An angel(what are also called messengers) can speak for god or god can speak true them.

In that case the Qu'ran would be in error because it calls Jesus a messenger but Jesus spoke the words of God directly not through a messenger. However if God can speak his own message then he is a messenger without an intermediary and then the Qu'ra n would be correct in calling Jesus a messenger. I believe the evidence stands against the deinition you provided.

The idea that God can speak through angels intrigues me. What evidence do you have?

 

[F0uad]

In that case the Qu'ran would be in error because it calls Jesus a messenger but Jesus spoke the words of God directly not through a messenger. However if God can speak his own message then he is a messenger without an intermediary and then the Qu'ra n would be correct in calling Jesus a messenger. I believe the evidence stands against the deinition you provided.

Your reasoning is flawed.. Jesus(pbuh) was a messenger to the rest of the Jews. Mohammed(saws) was a messenger to the rest of humanity that said.

Lets say for example: I am a king and i tell a soldier to deliver a paper with a message to my messenger who then needs to spread the paper message true my kingdom does that mean that my messenger is no longer a messenger? No it simply means there was more then one messenger included, Angels are called messengers in the Quran and Bible.

Don't forget that Muslims do not belief that God became Jesus(pbuh) or the other way around therefore Jesus(pbuh) was simply convening a message so there is no error at all.

The idea that God can speak through angels intrigues me. What evidence do you have?

The bible remember Mary the mother of Jesus(peace be upon them)?
There are so many examples that i can quote from the bible but ill just use this one now:

Hebrews 2-
2 The teaching God spoke through angels was shown to be true, and anyone who did not follow it or obey it received the punishment that was earned. 3 So surely we also will be punished if we ignore this great salvation. The Lord himself first told about this salvation, and those who heard him testified it was true. 4 God also testified to the truth of the message by using wonders, great signs, many kinds of miracles, and by giving people gifts through the Holy Spirit, just as he wanted.